
aass__£_l_Lv_ 
Book_____xl_M 



f 



27lh Congress, Rep. No. 384. Ho. of Reps. 

2d Session. 



REPRESENTATIVES OF NATHANIEL IRISH. 



March S, 1S43. 
Laid upon the table. 



Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the fol 

lowing adverse 

REPORT: 

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to lohich was referred the 
petition of the representatives of Nathaniel Irish, submit the following- 
report : 

The petitioners claim the commutation pay of a captain of artillery, for 
the services of Nathaniel Irish, to the end of the war, as a captain in the 
corps of artillery artificers, in the department of Colonel Benjamin Flower 
commissary general of military stores. 

This claim has been long before Congress, and has several times re- 
ceived the favorable action of the committee. Near the close of the last 

I Congress the committee reported a bill in accordance with the prayer of 
the petitioners, accompanied by a report, to which was appended an in- 

I genious and able argument, addressed to the committee by the claimants, 
which is hereto appended, marked A. 
At the present session the committee have re-examined the case and 

^ having come to a different conclusion from that of the committees before 
mentioned, think it proper to present their views of the claim somewhat in 
detail. 

It appears that Captain Irish and several other officers of this corps of 
artillery artificers presented their claims to John Pierce, commissioner 
of army accounts, soon after the close of the war, who declined allow- 
ing them, upon the groiind that the officers did not belong to the line of the 
army, and were not included in the promises of half pay, or the commuta- 

Vtion of half pay. The officers then applied to Congress on the subject. 
The petition of Captain Irish was referred to the Secretary of war who 
on the 3d of August, 17S5, made a report, declining to express an opinion 
upon the right of the petitioner, and recommending to Congress to declare 
what were their intentions in regard to the officers of this corps. For a 
copy of this report, see Appendix (B.) 

A petition of Captains Wylie and Jordan was referred to the commis- 
sioner of army accounts, who, on the 9th of August, 17S5, made an un- 
favorable report, to which was annexed a paper entitled " argument for 
and against the grant of commutation to the corps of artificers ;" which re- 
port and argument are found in the papers of the old Congress, State De- 
partment, No. 62. A copy of the report and accompanying argument are 
hereto appended, marked C. 




2 Kcp. No. 384. 

A petition of Joseph King, and another of John Jordan, were referred to 
a committee, consisting of I\Ir. Ellery of Rhode Island, Mr. Gardner of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Williamson of North Carolina, who made a re- 
port, c'onclnding with a resolve, " That the officers of the late corps of arti- 
ficers in the service of the United States are not entitled to half pay, or the 
commntation of half pay;" which report, on the 19th of October, 1735. 
was referred to the commissioner of army acconnts, "to' take order," or, ui 
other words, to govern himself by it in his settlement of the accounts of the 
army. For a copy of this report, see Appendix (D.) 

In the argument of the heirs of Captain Irish, the authenticity of this re- 
port is denied. It is said that there is nothing on eitiier the printed or 
manuscript Journal of Congress in relation to the report, and therefore it 
is inferred that no such report was ever made. On the next page of the 
same argument it is stated that Captain Irish presented his petition for com- 
mutation on the 29th July, 17S5; that it was referred to the Secretary of 
War, who made a report on the 3d of August, 17S5; and that Captains 
Wylie and Jordan's memorial was presented on the 1st of March, 17S5,and 
referred to the paymaster general, Mr. Pierce, who made his report on the 
9th of August, 1785. Now, not one word of all this is found on the 
Journal, and yet the facts took place as stated. The explanation is, that 
it was not the practice of the Secretary of Congress at that time to enter 
such matters on the Journal. A book was kept, separate from the Journal, 
on which minutes of all matters referred to committees, or to any of 
the Executive Departments or officers, with their reports upon them, were 
entered. This book is still preserved in the State Department, (No, 190 
of papers of the old Congress,) from which it appears that the report of 
Mr. EUery's committee on the memorials of Joseph King and John Jordan 
was made and referred to the commissioner of army accounts, '*' to take 
order " on the 19th of October, 17S5, as before stated. There can, there- 
fore be no doubt of the authenticity of the report. Its absence from the 
files'of Cono-ress is accounted for from the fact that it was sent to Mr. 
Pierce as certified by him, '•' to take order." But, in the place of it, there 
is found a copy, certified by Mr. Pierce, from the original in his possession. 

On the 25th of February, 17SS, another petition, signed by Alexander 
Power in behalf of Captains Irish, Wylie, and Jordan, and the other offi- 
cers of the artillery artificers, was presented to Congress, and referred to the 
Secretary of War, who reported on the 30th of July, 17SS, concluding with 
a resoUuion, "That the claim of the late officers of the artillery artificers, 
for the commutation of half pay granted to the late officers of the army of 
the United States, cannot be allowed." 

This report of General Knox is hereto appended, marked E. 

Alexander Power, in behalf of said officers, presented his petition again 
to Cont^ress, under the new Government; and the same being referred to 
the Secretary of War, he, on the 19th of March, 1790, made his report to 
the House of Representatives, reaffirming his previous unfavorable opinion 
of the claims, and urging strongly upon Congress the propriety of adhering 
to the decision of the old Congress, made the 19th of October, 1785. For 
this report of the Secretary of War, see Appendix (F.) Here the matter 
rested; and the claims, with aU others for revolutionary services, became ., 
barred by the act of limitation of the 27th March, 1794. 

The claims of this class of officers having thus received the decided con- 
deiunatiou of the public authorities; at the proper period f^r their settle- 



Rejj. No. 384. S 

ment, it seems to the committee that an attempt to revive them, after a 
lapse of fifty years, sliould be accompanied by very clear and satisfactory 
evidence that they were unjustly disallowed, under a palpable misapprehen- 
sion of either the law or the facts. If they were merely doubtful, the con- 
temporaneous decision should be acquiesced in. 

It is contended by the claimants in this case, that palpable injustice has 
been done ; that the commissioner of army accounts, the Secretary of War 
and the old Congress, clearly mistook both the law and the focts in the case • 
and that the petitioner was beyond doubt entitled to the commutation pay 
which he claimed. 

Before noticing tiie particular facts in this rase, it is proper to premise, 
that the persons permanently employed in ihe continental service during 
the Revolution were divided into two classes, eacii of whose business and 
duties were of a distinct character. The one class consisted of those who 
were employed in the exertion of physical force against the enemy — who. 
when occasion required, were drawn up in battle array for either attack or 
defence. These, in technical and legal language, composed ihe line of Ihe 
army ; and the officers belonging to this class were denominated officers of 
the line. The persons embraced in the other class were those whose busi- 
ness was to superintend and supply the munitions of war, such as pay, 
provisions and clothing, arms and ammunition, transportation, forage 
and quarters, and whatever regarded the health of the army. In this 
•class were those employed in the paymaster's, commissaries of purchases', 
commissaries of military stores', quartermaster's, and hospital departments. 
It was not the business or duty of these men to fight in the field, though 
those in the higher branches of the service were commissioned bv Con- 
gress, their commissions designating the department to which they belong- 
ed, and assigning them a certain rank in the army; which rank, however, 
did not authorize them to command except in their particular branch of the 
service. It was given to enable them to keep in due subordination those 
in their employment, and to justify and maintain the exercise of martial 
law throughout the service ; the officers being entitled, unless specially re- 
stricted, to sit in courts martial, when designated for that purpose, ranking 
in such courts with the officers of the line, according to their commissions. 

This class of persons constituted what was denominated the staff de- 
partynent of the army. The pay of these officers was not regulated by that 
of the officers of the line, but was specially appointed ; nor were they ever 
deemed to be entitled to the half pay, or the commutation of half pay, that 
being promised only to the officers of the line, except in the cases of chap- 
lains and certain officers in the hospital department, who were specially 
designated as entitled by distinct resolutions. 

For this difference between the pay and rewards promised the two classes 
of officers, there were good and sufficient reasons. The duties of the offi- 
cers in the line required a much greater sacrifice of personal comforts and 
exposure to personal danger than those in the staft' departments. It was 
necessary to offer the half pay to induce suitable persons to accept and re- 
tain situations in the line, as abundantly appears by the history of the 
time. In the civil branches of the service there was no such necessitv.. 
Places in the statf were sought after, and could always be filled without the 
offer of any such special reward. 

The question arises, to which branch of the service did Captain Irish 
belon? ? 



4 Rep. No. 384. 

In the first place, it may be remarked that he served throughout the war 
;;n the department of the commissary general of mihtary stores. He en- 
lered the service, as captain of artillery artificers, in January, 1777, under 
Colonel Flower, commissary general of military stores; immediately repair- 
ed to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where he was employed in superintending the 
erection of works for constructing ordnance, gun carriages, &c., and in the 
business carried on at said works, until the latter part of the summer of 
1779, wiien he went to Virginia, in the capacity of deputy commissary 
general of military stores; in which capacity he remained in Virginia, first 
at Richmond, and afterwards at New London, until after the close of the 
war. There is no pretence that either he or any other of the artillery ar- 
tificers performed military service in the field at any time. So far, then,, 
as the position of Captain Irish can be determined by the department in 
which he was employed, and the duty actually performed, he must be con- 
sidered as belonging to the civil branch of the service, to which the half 
pay was not promised. 

But it is alleged that, though the officers of this corps of artillery arti- 
ficers were only employed in the civil branch of the service, they were,, 
nevertheless, actually artillery officers, and, as such, entitled to all the 
emoluments of officers of the line. 

In the argument of the representatives of Captain Irish, it seems to be 
supposed that the corps of artificers constituted one of the three artillery 
regiments of the line authorized to be raised by General Washington, by 
virtue of the resolutions of Congress of December 27, 1776. Such was not 
the case. Benjamin Flower was commissioned " commissary general of 
military stores, with the rank of lieutenant colonel," the 16th of January ^^ 
1777, as appears by a copy of his commission, on file among the Washing- 
ton papers, vol. 32 of letters to Washington. Vol. 2 (B) of Washington's 
letters also contains a copy of General Washington's instructions to Com- 
missary General Flower for raising the corps of artificers, from which it ap- 
pears that it was raised, not by virtue of the resolutions before mentioned, 
but, as General Washington states, in consequence of " Congress having 
resolved to establish a magazine, laboratories, and foundries, at Yorktown, 
Pennsylvania." The corps was, therefore, raised by an officer in the staff 
department, and for the purpose of executing a duty assigned by Congress 
in the civil branch of the service. For a copy of General Washington's in- 
structions, see appendix to this report, marked G. 

It is, nevertheless, said that the oflicers of this corps were commissioned 
as artillery officers, and that their commissions furnish evidence of their 
right to the allowance claimed. The original commission of Captain Irish 
is produced, from which it appears that he was commissioned, under date of 
February 7, 1777, as '-captain of artillery, and commander of a company 
of artificers." The commissian is signed by John Hancock, President of 
Congress, attested by Charles Thompson, Secretary. On this point, it is 
said by General Knox, in his report of July 3G, 1788, that "the manner of 
filling up the commissions must have been an error, as it was not authorized 
by any act of Congress." As it is possible such an error might occur, it 
seems worth while to inquire into the correctness of General Knox's assertion. 

By the Journals of Congress, it appears that, on the 18th of September, 
1777, a memorial from Colonel Flower was read, together with a list of the 
corps of the artillery artificers and other officers under the command and 



Hep. iS'o. 384. 5 

in the department of the commissary general of military stores; ^vhere- 
iipon, it was 

" Resolved, That commissions be granted to the said officers, agreeably to 
their respective ranks." 

On the nth of November, 1777, th.e President informed Congress that 
the commissions had not yet issued; whereupon, it was ordered as follows : 

" That commissions be granted to the following persons in the depart- 
ment of commissary general of military stores, with the dates annexed to 
their respective names, agreeably to the said lists, viz : 

'•Of the company to work in the laboratory, enlisted to serve during the 
war as artillery men, Isaac Coren, captain, February 1, 1777 ; William E. 
Godfrey, captain lieutenant, July 1, 1777; Anthony Wright, first lieuten- 
ant, March 1, 1777; Andrew Caldwell, second lieutenant, April 1, 1777. 

" Of the company of artillery artificers, enlisted during the war, to be at- 
tached to the artillery in the field, Jesse Roe, captain, February 3, 1777; 
Valentine Holiman, captain lieutenant, February 12, 1777; Christian 
Beackley, first lieutenant, February 3, 1777; and William Preston, second 
heutenant, April 7, 1777. 

"Of the companies of artillery artificers, enlisted to serve for one year, and 
•ordered to be enlisted to serve during the war, Nathaniel Irish, captain. 
February 7, 1777; Thomas Wylie, captain lieutenant, February 17, 1777; 
George Norris, first lieutenant, February 8, 1777 ; James Sweiney, second 
lieutenant, February 23, 1777; David Pancoast, captain, February 10, 
1777 ; John Jordan, captain lieutenant, February 17, 1777 ; James Gibson, 
iirst lieutenant, February 17, 1777." 

The list contains the names of several other persons in the department of 
military stores, to whom commissions were to issue, among whom were 
^' Charles Lukins, major, commissary of military stores, and paymaster to 
the commissary general at Carlisle, March 8, 1777 ; his pay, 60 dollars a 
month and four rations a day. Alexander Power, quartermaster to the- 
■corps of artillery artificers at Carlisle, July 30, 1777; same pay and rations 
as regimental quartermaster." 

This is the resolution of Congress under which Captain Irish and the 
'Other officers of the artillery artificers were commissioned ; and it is per- 
fectly apparent that it contains no authority to commission them as artil- 
lery officers. They are styled artillery artificers ; that is, artificers em- 
ployed in constructing or repairing materials used by the artillery, in con- 
tradistinction to artificers who might be employed in the preparation of 
arms or equipments for infantry or other service. 

It appears, indeed, that the men "svhich composed the company com- 
manded by Captain Coren, although working in the laboratory, were en- 
listed as artillery men ; but it does not follow that the officer who com- 
manded them, while laboring as artificers, must necessarily be an artillery 
■officer. He should be presumed to be an officer of artificers. The mere 
<;ircurnstance that the men were so enlisted conferred no authority to issue 
artillery commissions. The men were doubtless liable to be transferred 
from the laboratory to field service, and placed mider artillery officers. But 
there is no question before the committee in regard to the officers of this 
company, none of them having applied for commutation. 

Another company of the artillery artificers, of which Jesse Roe \yas to 
be commissioned captain, are described as "enlisted during the war, to be 
attached to the artillery in the field." These were not enlisted as artillery 



6 Rep. No. 384. 

men, but as artificers ; instead of being stationary artificers at Carlisle, they 
were liable to be called upon to act as artificers with the army, wherever 
It might move ; they were in no sense artillery men. None of the officers 
of this company have applied for commutation. 

Bat the two companies to which Captains Irish, Wylie, and Jordan be- 
longed, are described only as artificers ; the men were neither enlisted as 
artillery men, nor were tliey bound to serve in the field as artificers. They 
are described as "the companies of artillery artificers enlisted to serve for 
one year, and ordered to be so enlisted to serve during the war." Cer- 
tainly this designation in the resolution could confer no authority on the 
President of Congress to make the officers of the company artillery officers. 
The men are described as artificers, and there is no intimation that the 
officers possessed any other character. General Knox was therefore cor- 
rect in saying, that " the filling up of the commissions must have been aa 
error, as it was not authorized by Congress." 

Nor was it authorized by the instructions of General Washington, under 
which the corps was originally organized. The instructions mention Cap- 
tain Coren by name, who was to have a company under his command, of 
sixty men, enlisted for the war as artillery men, but to be employed " for 
the present" at the laboratories, in fixing ammunition, casing shot with, 
fiannel cartridges for cannon, and in making cartridges. 

A company of artificers is authorized "to be enlisted during the war, to 
be attached to the artillery in the field," to consist of one master carpenter^ 
one master wheelwright, and one master blacksmith, two tinmen, two turn- 
ers, two coopers, four harness makers, two nailers, two farriers, six wheel- 
wrights, twenty-five carpenters, sixteen smiths — the whole being sixty — un- 
der the direction of the master carpenter. These artificers were organized into 
a company by Colonel Flower, and constituted that mentioned in the reso- 
lution of Congress, which was commanded by Captain Roe, who was the 
master carpenter. 

The only authority in the instructions for raising the two companies to 
which Captains Irish, Wylie, and Jordan belonged, is found in the first three 
paragraphs, where shops are directed to be built, " suliicient for 40 car- 
penters, 40 blacksmiths, and 20 wheelwrights, turners and tinmen in pro- 
portion to the demand the laboratory shall have for them, and 12 harness 
makers." These men are styled artificers, and are directed "to be enlisted 
for one year." They appear to have been organized by Colonel Flower 
into two companies, of which, at the time of issuing the commissions^ 
Captains Irisii, Wylie, and Jordan, were oflicers. That the officers were 
selected as artificers appears also from an original petition of Captain Irish,, 
presented to the House of Representatives in lS05,and now on file among 
the papers in the case. He says that, after Colonel Flower offered him a 
captaincy in his corps, "he desired him to recommend a good smith for a 
captain lieutenant, and a carpenter for a lieutenant ; and that he spoke to 
Thomas Wylie and James Gibson, and recommended ihem, and they were 
appointed accordingly." It will be found that they were among the offi- 
cers afterwards commissioned in the corps. It is impossible, from the in- 
structions of General Washington, to imbibe the idea that these men,. 
selected as artisans, for the express purpose of foUowhig their several avo- 
cations in the armory at Carlisle, were intended as artillery officers. This 
error in the filling up of the commissions, which, on examination, appears 
palpable, seems not to have been noticed by Colonel Pickering, who after- 



Hep. No. 384. 7 

wards became a member of the board of war ; and whose correspondence 
is now introduced by the claimants, to show that the corps of artificers was 
raised as a corps of artillery. General Knox, who commanded the artil- 
lery throughout the war, and must have had personal knowledge on the 
subject, denies that such was the fact ; and his explanation, which is found 
to be correct, sufficiently accounts for the error into which Colonel Pick- 
ering had fallen. 

In all the subsequent legislation of Congress having reference to this 
corps, it is uniformly treated as a corps of artificers, employed in the civil 
branch of the service. 

On the 11th of February, 177S, three months after the commissions 
issued. Congress passed resolutions organizing in detail the. commissary 
department of military stores, in which provision was made for increasing 
the corps of atrtillery artificers ; and it was also declared that the artillery 
artificers should be under the immediate direction and subject to the com- 
mand of the commissary general of military stores ; and that the officers 
of the artificers should only take rank in their own corps. 

On the 15th of March, 1779, Congress declared that the officers and men 
of the corps of artillery artificers should be credited to the States to which 
they belonged, as a part of the quota of such States. 

In 1779, a corps of artificers, consisting of eleven companies, had been 
raised in diflerent States, under the direction of the quartermaster general. 
In March and July of that year General Greene, the quartermaster general, 
addressed two several letters to the board of war, in which, in behalf of 
the officers and men of that corps, he complained that they were not on 
an equal establishment with Lieutenant Colonel Flower's regiment of artifi- 
cers, which he says they certainly merit, " being subject to more fatigue, 
hardship, and danger." He complained, among other things, that the offi- 
cers had not commissions from Congress, but only warrants from him ; 
that the pay of the officers and men was inadequate ; that they had not 
been declared by Congress \o form a part of the quota of the States to 
which they belonged, whereby they were deprived of all the benefits of the 
various provisions, in money and land, which their respective States had 
granted to the officers and men composing their quotas. (For these letters, 
see No. 155, vol. I, State Department.) These letters being reported to 
Congress by the board of war, that body, on the 12th and 16th of Novem- 
ber, 1779, took up the subject, and made provision for putting that corps 
on a footing with the artillery artificers. They were to receive commis- 
sions from Congress, but to have rank only in their own corps : they were 
to have the same pay, subsistence, and clothing, as the artillery artificers ; 
they were declared to form a part of the quota of the States to which they 
belonged ; and it was recommended to the several States to allow them 
all the benefits provided for officers and soldiers in the line, of their quotas, 
except the half pay. 

In the argument pf the claimants, before referred to, it is admitted that 
this exception of the half pay excludes the quartermaster's artificers from 
the benefit of that provision, and from commutation ; but it is contended 
that the exception, being confined to those artificers, does, at least by im- 
plication, recognise the artillery artificers as entitled to the provision. 
There does not seem to the committee any ground for this inference ; on 
the contrary, the exception appears to have been necessary to preserve the 
equality of the two corps. 



8 Rep. No. 384. 

It is to be observed, that the exception of the half paj' relates to the half 
pay which had been, or might be, promised by the S^afes, and not to the 
continental half pay. This is apparent from tiie language of the resolu- 
tion, which relates exclusively to allowances to be made by the States, and 
which involves an absurdity upon any other construction. In May, 1779, 
after the artillery artificers had been made to form a part of the quotas of 
the States, the Assembly of Virginia had passed an act promising half pay 
for life to the officers of her line in the continental army ; and on the 17th 
of August, 1779, Congress had recommended to the other States to make 
similar grants of half pay for life to their respective officers. Now, if in 
JVovember, 1779, Congress had recommended to the States to make the 
same provision, xoithout exception, for the quartermaster's artificers, that 
they had made or might make for the line of the army, and the recommend- 
ation had been complied with, the Virginia half pay would have been 
granted to tlic latter corps of artificers, though not to the former; and so 
also would any half-pay provision which might be subsequently made by 
any of the other States. It was the evident intention of Congress that the 
States should provide the same bounties, in money and land, for the quarter- 
master's artificers, that they did for the line, with the aforesaid exception : 
and it is believed that, under this and the previous resolution of the 15th 
of March, the States did grant to the ofiicers and men of both corps of ar- 
tificers all the bounties they had promised to those of the line, except the 
half pay, which they withheld from both. 

That this exception of the half pay in the resolution of the 16th of No- 
vember, 1779, had reference to the State and not the continental half pay, 
is further seen by the consideration that Congress at that time had passed 
only the resolution of May 15, 1778, on the subject of continental half pay, 
which resolution confined its allowance to military officers. As the offi- 
cers of the artificers were clearly not of this denomination, i| would have 
been useless and imnecessary to forbid its allowance to them. Congress, 
liaving excluded officers belonging to the civil branch of the service from 
the continental half pay, did not intend to recommend to the States to in- 
clude them in theirs ; and hence the exception. The exception, then, in- 
stead of making any distinction between the quartermaster's and the com- 
missary's artificers, favorable to the former, was designed to keep them 
on the same footing with the latter, and is to be taken as a general decla- 
ration of the sense of Congress, that artificers ought not to have the benefit 
of a half-pay provision, either of the States or the continent. 

That Congress did not intend to make any distinction between the two 
corps of artificers, in regard to half pay, is further shown by their resolu- 
tions of the 9lh of February, 1780, by which both corps are named as 
forming parts of the quotas of the States to which the officers and men be- 
longed, and the States are desired to provide for them as for the officers and 
men of their respective lines, " with such exceptions respecting the regi- 
mented artificers as have been made by Congress in their acts concerning 
them," evidently including in the term " regimented artificers" both the 
commissary's and quartermaster's aitificers, and treating the half pay ex- 
ception as applicable to both. 

Thus far, then, no warrant is found to justify the allowance of half pay 
to either corps of artificers. Congress had excluded them from its own 
half pay, by confining it to military officers, and had also cautioned the 
States against making them the allowance. But it is said that they are 



Eep. No. 384. B 

clearly included in the premises of half pay made by the resolations of the 
3d and 21st of October, 17S0. It is urged that these resolutions, by mak- 
ing the artificers a component part of the army, and then promising half 
pay to the officers of the army, necessarily comprehend the artificers, and 
give them the benefit of the promise. 

To this argument the report of the committee of Congress of the 19th of 
October, 1785, gives the proj)er answer. It is there said that " the original 
^ct of Congress of May 15, 1778, by which half pay was promised for 
seven years, confines the same to mihtary officers, which certainly did not 
include the artificers ; and your committee are of opinion that, in all sub- 
sequent acts which relate to the half pay, the same denomination of offi- 
cers must be intended, unless where other officers are expressly mentioned. 
Surely, the act of October 3, 1780, promising half pay to officers whO' 
might be deranged, never could be construed as giving pay to any class of 
officers who had no claim to half pay, had they continued in service to the 
•end of the war." That the promise of half pay for life, made in the reso- 
lutions of October 21, 17S0, was not intended to apply to any other thati 
military officers, is confirmed by the construction given them in regard to 
surgeons and surgeons' mates. In tliose resolutions, surgeons and surgeons' 
mates are expressly mentioned as forming a part of the officers of each 
infantry regiment ; and yet the resolutions were never construed to entitle 
them to the halfpa3^ On the 17th of January, 1781, the provision of 
half pay was expressly extended to certain officers in the hospital depart- 
ment, and, among others, to regimental surgeons. It was not extended to 
surgeons' mates ; and they were never considered as entitled to the pro- 
vision, though named as officers in the resolution of the 21st of October. 
This seems conclusive as to the contemporaneous construction, and of 
course as to the real intention of Congress on the subject. 

The artificers were never arranged under the resolutions of the 3d and 
.2 1st of October, 1780, nor was the regiment assigned to Pennsylvania ever 
organized. On the 29th of March following. Congress, on report of the 
board of war, dissolved the regiment in the quartermaster's department, 
and directed the non-commissioned officers and men to be formed into 
two companies, one attached to the Northern and the other to the Southern 
army. Congress also, on the same day, ordered the non-commissioned 
officers and men of the artillery artificers at Carlisle to be formed into one 
or more companies ; and the officers at that place, except Captains Wiley 
and Jordan, to be no longer considered in the service of the United States. 

It is admitted by the claimants that the quartermaster's artificers were 
aiot entitled to commutation ; and yet, one argument used in favor of the 
Tight of the artillery artificers is, that they were declared by Congress to 
form a part of the quotas of the States to which they belonged. This ar- 
gument, as has been seen, will apply equally in favor of the quartermas- 
ter's artificers, who were put on the same footing, in that as in other 
respects, with the commissary's artificers. The answer to this argument, 
in regard to both corps, given by Mr. Pierce, the commissioner of army 
accounts, in 1785, seems to be conclusive ; and is, "that the assigning of those 
corps as part of the States' quota was to determine the number of men 
who were to be furnished by each State, and to give their officers and men 
the advantages of the lines derived immediately from the States ; but can- 
not be construed to extend to any demands the military officers, as such, 
. may have upon the Union." 



10 Hep. No. 384. 

In favor of allowing commutation to the artillery artificers it is said 
there are several early precedents, which ought to induce the allowance to 
the residue' of the officers. The committee have made inquiry at the- 
proper offices, and cannot find more than one officer of artificers who 
has had the benefit of the commutation pay : that officer is Dr. McKosky^ 
surgeon of the artillery artificers. 

The allowance to Dr. McKosky was made by special resolution of May 
3, 1782, when, on the occasion of discharging him from the service, it was 
resolved that he should be considered as reduced, and retiring from service 
on the 10th of the same month, entitled to the emoluments allowed to re- 
duced regimental surgeons. On this precedent, it should be observed, that 
.surgeons claimed half pay, not as military officers, under the resolutions of 
October 21, 17S0, but as officers of the medical staff, under the resolution of 
January 17, 1781. That resolution allowed the pay to hospital as well as 
regimental surgeons; and as the office of surgeon, under all circumstances, 
was of a civil, and not a military character. Congress may have considered 
a surgeon of artificers as having similar claims to those in the hospitals,, 
whose services were not performed in camp. This view of Dr. McKosky's 
case corresponds whh that of General Knox, who, in his report of July 
30, 1788, says : " It would appear that Congress considered the surgeon 
differently circumstanced from the officers of the artificers, as the corps; 
had been previously reduced by the resolve of Congress of the 29th of 
March, 17S1, and all the officers, except two, discharged, without any spe- 
cification of rewards." 

Certificates for commutation were also issued to Captain Pendleton, and 
to Captain Patton and his subalterns, but were afterwards returned as hav- 
ing been improperly issued. 

Captain Pendleton belonged to the corps of quartermaster's artificers^ 
who,. it is admitted, were not entitled to commutation. It was allowed 
him by the paymaster general, in consequence of a misconstruction of a 
resolution of Congress of the 3d of November, 1783. The resolution, as 
appears by the report of the Secretary of War, on which it was founded,. 
(No. 149, vol. 3, State Department,) was merely intended to confer on the 
paymaster general the necessary authority to settle the accounts of Cap- 
tain Pendleton's company of artificers, without intending to direct him in 
regard to the character of the allowances to be made them. • But as it di- 
rected him '' to give certificates for the balances due, as is given to the line 
of the army,^' he construed it to mean, that he should make the same al- 
lowances as he made to the line of the army; and he accordingly allowed 
commutation to Captain Pendleton. He also made the same allowance \o 
Captain Patton and his subalterns, also of the quartermaster's artificers ^. 
but, on discovering his mistake, the commutation certificates were recalled,, 
and all these officers failed to haye the benefit of that provision, as will 
appear by letters from the Third Auditor, hereto appended, marked H.- 
These are all the officers of artificers to whom commutation certificates 
were issued. Thus it is found that none of the officers of either corps of 
artificers had the benefit of the commutation allowance, except the sur- 
geon ; and he claimed under a different resolution of Congress from those 
officers now applying, and was allowed by special act of Congress. 

The committee, on a review of the history of the corps of artillery artifi- 
cers, and the proceedings of the old Government in regard to them, are of 
opinion that the officers were not liable to do duty in the field, but only in. 



Rep. jN'o. 384. II 

the civil branch of the service ; and, consequently, that they were not em- 
braced by the half-pay resolutions, and are not entitled to commutation.. 
But if the riglit of these officers to commutation were doubtful, which the 
committee do not think is the case, they would not feel at liberty to disre- 
gard the early and uniform decisions of all departments of the Government 
against their claim. These decisions, made on fair and full consideration^ 
at the proper period, and by the proper tribunals, ought to be considered as 
fixing the rights of the parties, and putting their claims forever at rest. 

But, if the right of the artillery artificers to commutation were admitted,, 
the claim of Captain Irish would, at best, be of very doubtful character. 
Captain Irish left the corps of artificers at Carlisle, in the summer of 1780^. 
before the passage of the half-pay resolutions of October of that year, and 
never joined it afterwards, having been appointed a commissary of military- 
stores for the Southern department, in which capacity he served in Virginia 
till after the close of the war. On the 1st of July, 1784, he settled his ac- 
count with the paymaster general, for his services as captain of artificers,, 
and received pay up to the 1st of August, 1780, and no longer. In 1192 
he settled his account as commissary of military stores, and received pay 
as such from the 1st of August, 17S0, to the 3 1st of January, 17S5. These 
settlements Avould seem conclusive to show that he could not have belong- 
ed to the corps of artificers at the time of the passage of the resolutions of 
October, 1780, which granted the half pay, or at any time afterwards; and 
that, of course, no promise of half pay could have been made him, even if 
the corps had been included in it. There is, iudeed, on file a certificate of 
Richard Peters, who had been secretary to the board of war, who, in 1785, 
says that, when Captain Irish was ordered to Virginia, in 1780, the board 
agreed, " so fur as they had power so to clo,^^ that he should not be pre- 
judiced as io promotion and compensation in the regiment of artificers, by 
his services in- the Southern business. But this agreement could not have 
had reference to the compensation of half pay for life, which was not prom- 
ised till nearly three months afterwards ; and if it had, it cannot be sup- 
posed the board had power, by their agreement, to extend the provision of 
half pay to those not embraced by the resolutions of Congress. 

It may be remarked, that the compensation of a commissary was greater 
than that of a captain of artificers ; that of Captain Irish, from August,. 
1780, to the close of the war, having amounted to nearly five hundred dol- 
lars more than he would have received by continuing in the corps at Car- 
lisle. 

The committee recommend that the prayer of the petitioners be re- 
jected. 



12 Kep. No. 384. 



APPENDIX. 



Claimants' argument. 

A statement of facts in relation to the regiment of artillery artificers, with a reference to all the 
resolutions of Congress touching that regiment, with other documents and papers, showing "its 
organization, and its relative position with respect to the other regiments of the army, of which 
it was a regular component part ; and that its officers were included in the promises of half pay, 
and entitled to the commutation thereof: prepared with reference to the memorial of William 
B. Irish, son and representative of Nathaniel Irish, a captain in that regiment. 

Nathaniel Irish was appointed a captain of artillery on the 1 1th Novem- 
ber, 1777, to take rank from the 7th of February of the same year, and was 
assigned to the command of a company of artillery artificers. The fact that 
he was appointed a captain of artillery is proved by his original commis- 
sion, signed by the President of Congress, and now filed with his petition. 
It is also conclusively proved that Captain Irish not only served to the close 
<>{ the war, but for several years thereafter, as he was one of the officers re- 
tained in seri^ice, in charge of military stores, after the army was disbanded. 

The memorial prays the allowance of the five years' full pay promised 
by the resolution of Congress of the 22d of March, 17S3, in lieu of the half 
pay for life granted to officers continuing in service to the end of the war, 
by the resolutions of the 21st October, 17S0. 

This case was before the House of Representatives at the 25th Congress ; 
it was examined by the Committee on Revolutionary Claims with much 
-care, and v/as favorably reported on. In that report, reference is made to 
the case of Captain John Jordan, of the same regiment, which was anala- 
gous, in most of its points, to that of Captain Irish. The case of Jordan 
imderwent some discussion in the House ; and, although no final decision 
"was had, it was opposed, on the ground that, by a resolution of 16th No- 
Tember, 1779, officers oi artificers were excluded from the benefits of the 
half-pay law. 

In consequence of the objections raised in the case of Captain John Jor- 
dan, I have closely and thoroughly investigated the whole proceedings of 
the revolutionary Congress in relation to the regiment of artillery artificers, 
as well as the regiment of quartermaster's artificers. The result is, a per- 
fect conviction that the officers of the regiment oi artillery artificers are in- 
cluded in the promise of half pay, and are entitled to the five years' full 
pay in lieu thereof; and that the officers of the regiment of quartermaster's 
artificers are not. 

That this question may be put to rest forever, and that justice may be 
rendered to those from whom it has been so long withheld, the facts and 
the results of this thorough investigation are here given. 

The resolution of the IGtli November, 1779, is in these words: "That 
it be recommended to the several States to allow the corps of artificers e^- 
iahlished by Congress on the 12/A instant, [that is, the 12th November, 
1779,] all tlie benefits provided for officers and soldiers in the line of their 



Hep. No. 384. 13 

quotas of the continental battalions, except half pay." (See Journal, vol. 
5, pp. 308, 312.) 

Now, this exclusion is to a corps established on the 12th of November, 
1779, and belonging to the quartermaster's department, anrf/o^one other; 
while the regiment of artillery artificers was established as early as Feb- 
ruary, 1777, upwards of two years and nine months before the establish- 
ment of the regiment to which the exclusion of half pay is expressly con- 
fined. (See Journals, vol. 2, p. 387.) 

Independent of the misconstruction of the resolution of the 16th Novem- 
ber, 1779, excluding the quarterryiaster^s artificers from half pay, and the 
errror in applying it to the artillery artificers, most of the difficulties which, 
have been interposed, and which have prevented the few remaining officers 
of the regiment of artillery artificers from obtaining their five years' full, 
pay in lieu of half pay for life, have arisen from a report said to have been 
made by a committee of Congress on the 19th day of October, 1785. 

The words '■^ said to have been made''"' are here used ; for upon turnin"' 
to the Journals of Congress, to examine into the circumstances attendant 
upon the report, I was surprised that the report itself, with the resolutio)i 
with which it is said to conclude, were not only not to be found, but that 
there is no reference or notice whatsoever on the Journals of Congress, either 
of the 19th October, 1785, or of any other day, to the subject,"as set forth 
in this supposed report. Lest the entry might have been left out of the 
printed Journal, the manuscript has been examined, but to no purpose. 
This is an important fact ; and it is peculiarly unfortunate that a class of 
meritorious officers should so long have been denied their just rights and 
hard-earned rewards, under color of an act of Congress which never ex- 
isted. 

It is possible such a report may have been prepared by a member of some 
committee, and found its way to the accounting officers, who supposed it 
to have been actually made and adopted, and acted upon it accordino-ly • 
but it seems to be very certain that it never became an act of Cono-ress. 
The Journal may be searched in vain for it, or for any notice of it, from one 
end to the other; and it was an invariable practice to enter all resolutions 
and most of such reports, on the Journal, when adopted by Congress ; but 
there is no notice whatever of it. 

But, even admitting that this report was actually made, it is based upon ao 
erroneous assumption of facts, and is easily explained away. It says " that 
half pay was granted to military officers, chiefly from a consideration that 
by a long continuance in the military line, they may have lost those habits 
by ivhich they had formerly been enabled to provide for themselves or fam- 
ilies; which reasons do not apply so fully to the officers of artificers." 

Now, the reasons given by Congress itself, in the resolution of the 17th 
August, 1779, for half pay, are — that it would be an indemnity " for the 
dangers, losses, and hardships, they have satlered and been exposed to in 
the course of the contest." (See vol. 2, p. 240.) 

These reasons certainly applied to the officers of the regiment of artillery 
artificers, who are declared to be field troops by the resolution organizing- 
them. But, to show conclusively the fallacy of the reasons given in this 
supposed report, it ought to be remarked, that not ox\\^ surgeons, hvX. chap-- 
lains, were admitted to be entitled to half pay, and have actually received 
it. Surely surgeons and chaplains were not more likely to lose in the army 
\\\Q habits by which they were enabled to support themselves, than officers. 



14 Hep. No. 384. 

of artillery artificers. On the contrary, it was the very best school for per 
fecting them in their professions. 

The fallacy of the whole reasoning of this supposed report, as well as the 
erroneous application which it attempts to make to bar the claims of the 
artillery artificers, of the resolution of the 16th of November, 1779, which 
was passed with express reference to the quartermaster's artificers, would 
seem to show that it was drawn up by a person unacquainted with the va- 
rious resolutions and orders of Congress upon the subject ; and was, no 
doubt, the reason (if it was ever submitted to a committee at all) why it did 
not receive its sanction, or the sanction of Congress, 

It is not, however, necessary to pursue this supposed report further : it 
Sias no relation to the claims of the officers of Flower's regiment of artille- 
ry artificers, which was established in 1777; it refers exclusively to the 
officers of Baldwin's regiment o{ quartermaster's artificers, which was es- 
tablished 12th November, 1779, which it is admitted were not entitled to the 
ihalf pay. The artillery artificers are nowhere mentioned or alluded to in it. 

Since writing the above, it occurred to me that it might be possible, by a 
'diligent search among the papers of the old Congress, to ascertain, beyond 
-a doubt, the facts connected with the report which is here alleged not to 
have been made, and of course not to be genuine. Under that impression, 
.and with that view, I made an examination of all the documents of the old 
Congress in any wise connected with the subject ; which are now classed, 
veil arranged, and preserved in bound volumes, in the Department of 
^tate. 

The report purports to have been made on memorials of sundry ofiUcers 
of artificers. I found the original memorial of Captain Nathaniel Irish, en- 
dorsed on its back by the Secretary of Congress, as presented on the 29th 
July, 1785, and referred to the Secretary of War. I also found the report 
of General Knox, Secretary of War, made August 3, 1 7S5. The Secretary 
admits the existence of the two corps as distinct regiments, and refers par- 
ticularly to the exclusion of the quartermaster's regiment. He says that 
Captain Irish was commissioned as a captain of artillery and commander 
of a company of artificers ; and that his pay was the same as other officers 
of equal rank in the continental artillery. 

He says that the exclusion of the quartermaster's artificers is clear; but, 
as some doubts had arisen as to the construction of the resolutions of the 
3d and 21st October, 17S0, which made the artificers a component part of 
the regular army, and did not exclude them from any of the benefits prom- 
ised in those resolutions, he declines to make particular report on the peti- 
tion of Captain Irish, and says Congress had better determine what were 
■their intentions on the subject. 

An original memorial of Captain Wylie and Captain Jordan, of the ar- 
iillery arlificers, was also found, endorsed upon it as presented on the 1st 
March, 1785, and referred to the paymaster general, (Mr. Pierce,) who 
made his report on the 9th August, 1 785 ; which is also on file. Mr. Pierce's 
report is contained in three or four lines; and he says that, in his opinion, 
there are no existing resolutions of Congress which embrace their cases. 

No other opinion could have been expected from Mr. Pierce, as he was 
the officer whose duty it was to settle the half pay and commutation; and 
he was the very officer, and the only officer, who refused to allow it. 

On the day that Mr. Pierce made his report, (to wit, on the 9th of Au- 
gust, 1785,) the memorials of Captains Irish, W^'lie, and Jordan, with the 



Eep. No. 384. 15 

reports of the Secretary of War and the paymaster genera!, were referred 
to a committee. 

As the Journals of Congress make no mention whatsoever of any report 
of this committee, search was made in vain for it through all the original 
files and reports, as well as among all other files where it was supposed it 
might even by chance have been placed ; but there is no trace of it. 

But, that all doubt may be put to rest forever, as to tlie fact whether 
this report was or was not made, the words " 7io reporV are distinctly en- 
dorsed, in the handwriting of ]\Jr. Alden, the deputy secretary of Congress, 
on the back of the petition of Captain Irish, immediately below the refer- 
ence to the committee. 

Thus, the fact that this report, wlych has so long interposed to prevent 
meritorious men from obtaining their rights, is found never to have had any 
existence or authority, other than that of the person Avho may have drawn 
it up. That it was never adopted by the committee, or made to Congress, 
is established by the entry of the Secretary of Congress, on the orio-inal 
memorial of the senior officer, that no report was made. 

The suggestion hereinbefore made seems to be the only mode of account- 
ing for its getting to the office of the paymaster general, to wit : that it was 
probably drawn up by a member of the committee ignorant of the resolu- 
tions of Congress in relation to these two regiments ; and, if submitted to 
the committee, did not, of course, receive their sanction. And, as the 
papers upon the subject probably found their way to the office of Mr. 
Pierce, this fictitious report may have been among them, and Mr. Pierce 
took it as a genuine act of Congress, sent to him for his government. 

This is the most rational way to account for it ; and it^is again repeated, 
that it is unfortunate that a paper which never had any official existence' 
should have been received as the law of Congress, to deprive meritorious 
men of their just rights and hard-earned dues — rights which are fuUv 
established by the laws and facts that will now be set forth. 

The following is a complete history of the legislation of Congress, as re- 
gards the regiment oi artillery artificers, and the regiment oi quay^termas- 
ter^s artificers ; and shows conclusively the care taken by Congress not to 
blend these two regiments together. This blending, or rather confoundino-, 
was afterwards unfortunately made by the accounting officers ; the conse- 
quence of which error was,'Uiat several of the officers of the artillery artifi- 
cers, or rather artillery officers, (as they, in fact, were commissioned,) 
have had their commutation of half pay withheld to the present time. 

On the 27th December, 1776, Congress conferred upon General Wash- 
ington very great and extraordinary powers ; among others, authority to 
>raise, officer, and equip sundry additional military corps, including- thr.ee 
.regiments of artillery, and to establish their pay, and to fill up all^acan- 
cies in every other department of the army. (Vol. 2, p. 475.) 

In an original representation of Nathaniel Irish, (who was an officer'in 
a company of volunteer artillery from Philadelphia throughout the cam- 
paign of 1776, and who was in the memorable battles of Trenton and 
Princeton, on the 1st and 2d January, 1777,) which was presented to the 
House of Representatives December 13, 1805, and now filed, it is stated 
that, upon the expiration of his term of service, he returned to Philadelphia 
and, in a few days, " Colonel Benjamin Flower sent to him and told him' 
he had orders from General Washington to raise a battalion of artillery, 
which was to be composed of artificers, to make and repair gun carriages' 



u 



Rep. No. 384. 



as well as to do military duty wherever they were ordered ; and that the 
colonel offered him a captaincy in his corps, which he accepted." 

Colonel Benjamin Flower commanded the artillery artificers, and that 
regiment was a portion of the three regiments of artillery which General 
Washington was authorized to raise by the extraordinary grant of power 
conferred upon him by Congress on the 27th December, 1776. Hence the 
declaration of the board of war, on the 30th April, 1778, hereinafter quoted, 
" that the regiment of artillery artificers ivas originally raised as an artil- 
lery regiment.^'' 

Such is the origin of this corps. It will be perceived, by the Journals of 
Congress and the commissions of the officers, (a list of which presently fol- 
lows,) that the corps was organized aj^ early as the beginning of February, 
1777, as several of the officers are to take rank from that time ; coinciding 
precisely with the time mentioned in the memorial of Captain Irish. 

September IS. 1777. — Colonel Benjamin Flower, the commissary gen- 
eral of military stores, laid before Congress a list of the officers of the corps 
of the artillery artificers ; and Congress passed a resolution, " that com- 
missions he granted to the saidofficers, agreeably to their respective ranks."* 
(See Journal, vol. 2, p. 269.) 

November 11, 1777. — The President of Congress reported that the of- 
ficers ordered to be commissioned by the resolution of the 18th September, 
1777, had not yet been commissioned. Congress thereupon passed an 
order again directing the commissions to issue to the officers according to 
their grades, and to take rank at the time set against the name of each 
man, viz : 

captain, rank from February 1, 1777. 



Isaac Coren, 
Jesse Roe, 
Nathaniel Irish, 
David Pancoast, 
Wm. Goodfrey, 
Val. Hofiman, 
Thomas Wyhe, 
John Jordan, 
Anthony Wright, 
Christian Beackley, 
George Norris, 
James Gibson, 
Andrew Caldwell, 
Wm. Preston, 
James Sweiney, 
Alexander Powers, 



do do 

do do 

do do 

captain lieutenant. do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

1st lieutenant, do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

2d lieutenant, do 

do do 

do do 

do 



February 3, 1777. 

February 7, 1777. 

February 10, 1777. 

July 1, 1777. 

February 12, 1777. 

February 17, 1777. 

February 17, 1777. 

March 1, 1777. 

February 3, 1777. 

February 8, 1777. 

February 17, 1777. 

April 1,1777. 

April 7, 1777. 

February 22, 1777. 

June 30, 1777. 



quartermaster, 
(See Journal, vol. 2, p. 387.) 

Now, all these officers were commissioned by Congress, and their com- 
missions were signed by the President, after the same form as all of the 
other oflicers of the army. These commissions (as the original commission 
of Nathaniel Irish, now exhibited, shows) appointed the persons to whom 
ihey were given officers of artillery, and then assigned them to duty in 
companies of artillery artificers. 

It is worthy of particular remark, that, in the order of Congress directing 
the commissions to issue to the officers, one of the companies is designated 
as a company "enlisted to serve during the war as artillery men.'''' An- 
other is designated as " artillery artificers, enlisted to serve during the war. 



Rep. No. 384. 17 

to be attached to the artillery in the field.^' Thus they are expressly 
designated " artillery men,-' and " artillery artificers, to be attached to the 
artillery in the field." 

It has been alleged that it was intended that these officers should be 
commissioned by General Washington, and that they were commissioned 
by Congress through mistake. That is not the fact. It was the officers of 
the quartermaster's artificers, commanded by Colonel Baldwin, not the 
artillery artificers, commanded by Colonel Flower, that were to be com- 
missioned by the commander-in-chief, if either were to be so commissioned ; 
for (mark !) by the resolution of the 12th November, 1779, organizing Colo- 
nel Baldwin's corps, it was to be done " in such manner as the commander- 
in-chief should deem proper;" and (he arrangement to be reported to the 
board of war, "to the intent that the officers may receive their co?nmis~ 
sions.'^ This phraseology about commissions is peculiar to this (Bald- 
win's) corps alone ; whilst the language used in the order for commissioas 
to the artillery artificers is precisely the words used in all other resolutions 
directing commissions to be granted to officers of the army, when they 
were to be executed by the President of Congress, viz : 

" That commissions be granted to the said officers, agreeably to their 
respective ranks." (Vol. 2, p. 2G9.) 

And again: when the issuing the commissions had been neglected froni 
the 18th September to the Uth November, the President of Congress 
reported the fact, and another order was passed, " That commissions be 
granted to the following-named persons." After being so repeatedly be- 
fore Congress, the President could scarcely have issued these commissions 
by mistake. 

By the resolutions directing the commissions to issue to the officers, as 
well as from Captain Irish's memorial, it is shown that the corps of artil- 
lery artificers was organized as far back as February, 1777. Now, Bald- 
win's corps of quartermaster's artificers is not organized or recognised till 
the 12th of November, 1779 — two years and nine months afterwards ; and 
the prohibition against half pay, contained in the resolution of 16th No- 
vember, 1779, is expressly confined to that corps, and is in no instance 
applied to the artillery artificers. The very same resolution that excludes 
Baldwin's artificers from half pay recognises the existence of the artillery 
artificers as a separate and distinct corps. (See vol. 3, p. 392.) 

February 11, 1778. — In the resolution organizing the department of the 
commissary general of military stores are the following provisions: 

That the pay of Colonel Benjamin Flower's corps of artillery artificers 
shall be, for all those who shall engage to serve the United Stales as such. 
for three years, or during the war, ^20 per month, besides the same bounty, 
clothing, and every other benefit allowed by Congress to the continental 
artillery; the officers the same pay as others of equal rank in the conti- 
nental artillery. 

That all officers, artificers, and others in the ordnance and mihtary store 
department, (artillery artificers,) shall be governed by the rules and articles 
of war, in the same manner as other officer's (mark the word other) in the 
artillery of the United States. (Journal, vol. 4, p. 64.) 

The word other, as here used, specially recognises them as artillery offi- 
cers. It has no other meaning ; and if it were not intended by it to recog- 
nise them as artillery officers, it has no meaning at all, and is useless in the 
sentence. 

2 



18 Rep. No. 384. 

February 11, 177S. — Artillery artificers that are employed in armories 
or military magazines [those employed with the army in the field ex- 
cepted) are placed under the command of the commissary general of mili- 
tary stores. (Vol. 4, p. 64.) 

This clearly shows that the artillery artificers were subject to do duty 
'■'■loith the army in the field,'^ and were consequently y^e/of troops; and 
their officers, therefore, were militaiy officers to all intents and purposes. 
See also the order for their appointment, of November 11, 1777, where 
they are declared to be artillery men and artillery artificers, to do duty in 
the field. 

On the 7th of April, 1779, the board of war issued the recruiting in- 
structions to Colonel Flower : 

War Office, \,^pril 7, 1779. 
Sir : Workmen being much wanted in your department, you are hereby 
directed to enlist so many artificers a7id matrosses as shall be necessary to 
complete your companies of artificers, and co^npanies ofi artillery, to their 
full complement of one hundred men each ; paying to and for every man 
lecruited such sums as are allowed by a resolution of Congress of the 23d 
January last. 

By order of the beard of war : 

TIM. PICKERING, Jr. 
Benjamin Flower, Esq. 

Commissary General Military Stores, 

and Colonel of Artillery and Artificers. 

A copy of the recruiting n^.structions, certified by Colonel Flower, is filed 
\vith the papers of Captain Irish. In it he is instructed by the board ot 
war to enlist inatrosses. And what are matrosses, in the military sense 
of the term? They are artillerymen. It is the only appellation by 
which artillery men are known, in the technical language of an army. 
But what is still more conclusive that this regiment was regarded as really 
and truly an artillery regiment, with artificers incorporated in it for the 
very valuable purpose of keeping in repair and good order its arms, gun 
carriages, &c., is, that in this order he is directed to complete his " com- 
panies of artillery to their full complement ;" and the order itself is di- 
rected to Benjamin Flower, as ^^ colonel of artillery ^.ndi artificers." It 
would seem that nothing further was wanting to establish the character of 
this regiment as an artillery regiment. 

There is also filed among the papers of Captain Irish the original cer- 
tificate of his oath of allegiance and fidelity to the United States, taken 
before, and certified by, Major General Arnold, on the 27th of July, 1778. 
In this oath and certificate, whicii was taken and given in pursuance of a 
resolution of Congress, Captain Irish is recognised as "' captain of artillery 
and artificers." 

In all the papers and correspondence filed with the papers of Captain 
Irish, he is recognised as captain of artillery, commanding artificers, or 
captain of artillery a?2(i artificers. In no instance whatever is he addressed 
or referred to as captain of artificers. The artillery invariably precedes 
the artificers. 

One of the resolutions of the llth February, 1778, provides "that, for 



Eep. No. 3S4. W 

i^he fuliire, the officers of the regiment of artillery artificers should take 
arank only as officers of that corps." 

In the original memorial from Captain Nathaniel Irish, one of the cap- 
tains of the regiment, to Congress, presented 13th December, 1805, and 
now filed, he says: "After the resolve by Congress of the Uth February, 
1 77S, by which, finding that the officers who might in future join the corps 
were not to be entitled to rank but in said corps, I obtained leave to o-o to 
Yorktown, where Congress and the board of war were sitting, and de- 
livered my commission to General Gates, the president of the board, and 
told him I wished to resign it; giving my reason, that I thought the corps 
degraded by the resolve of Congress of the 11th February, 1778. .The 
general, after reading it, returned it to me, telling me he would not accept 
it; that the service required my attendance to my duty, and that /nee^ 
he under no apprehension of losing my rank as an officer of artillery in 
the army. Soon after which, (that is, on the 30th April, 1778,) the board 
of war addressed the following explana.tory letter to Colonel Flower ; 
which declaration so satisfied the officers that they continued at their duty: 

"War Office, Yorktoivn,Jipril 30, 1778. 
"Some misapprehensions having taken place relative to the rank of offi- 
cers in the corps of artillery artificers, arising from an expression in the new 
regulations, by which they may seem to be excluded from rank in the ar- 
tillery of the United States, the board think it necessary explicitly to de- 
clare that, as the regiment of artillery artificers ivas oi'iginally raised as 
an artillery regiment, it was the intention of the board that all those offi- 
cers \\ ho were possessed of rank at the new regulation of the department 
Avhich was made on the 1 1th of February last, should still retain the same, 
•and be respected accordingly ; and that only such officers as should after 
that time be appointed in the corps of artillery artificers, should be excluded 
;from rank except in that corps. 
" By order of the board : 

"TIM. PICKERING, Jk. 
" Col. Benjamin Flower." 

The original letter of the board of war, signed by Colonel Timothy 
■Pickering, one of its members, and wholly in his own proper handwriting, 
is filed with the papers of Captain Nathaniel Irish, now before the House 
of Representatives. This letter distinctly and explicitly declares that the 
regiment of artillery artificers was originally raised as an artillery regi- 
ment ; and that the officers of it who were possessed of rank on the lith 
February, 1778, should still retain the same, and rank as artillery officers; 
and that such only as should thereafter be appointed in the corps should be 
excluded from rank except in their own corps. 

Now, let it be remembered that Nathaniel Irish was a captain in the 
corps at that time, and had been from its commencement, and remainad so 
till 1785 : John Jordan was a captain lieutenant in it also dt that time, and 
was subsequently promoted to a captaincy. So far, then, as regards Cap- 
tain Irish, it would seem to be settled that he was, and remained, an artil- 
lery officer. 

It is also worthy of notice, that, at this very period of time, (viz : April 
30, 1778, the day this letter was written,) Congress, by their Journals, ap- 
ipear to be debating on the very subject of granting half pay to military offi- 



20 Rep. No. 384. 

cers ; when, had they intended the exckision of this regiment, as has beeiv 
alleged, it would no doubt have been expressed in their resolution of the 
15th May, 1778, immediately following, granting half pay, &c. This was 
done in the case of the eleven companies of quartermaster's artificers, raised 
November 12, 1779. (See resolution of 16th November, 1779, vol. 3, page 
392.) 

In another letter from the board of war to Colonel Flower, signed by- 
Colonel Timothy Pickering, dated May 24, 1779, a year after the foregoing 
letter from the board of war. is enclosed the following extract of a letter 
from General Washington to the board, viz : 

'• I also think that the officers of artillery, and artillery artificers, should 
sit together on courts martial, for the reason you have mentioned ; and that 
the oldest officer in either corps should take the command in a// regimental 
duty." 

The board of war then adds : " We are happy to find the general's sen- 
timents on the subject exactly to coincide with our own. It is on these prin- 
ciples alone the department can be supported, unless Congress should place 
it on another tmiform establishment." 

Thus it appears that General Washington and the board of war consid- 
ered the officers of artillery and artillery artificers as identical. 

In addition to all this, if further proof be necessary that this regiment 
was on the same footing, in all respects, with the regular artillery, it may 
be found in the fact that the corps was regularly disciplined, and mustered 
by a regular artillery officer. See the certificate of Thomas Forrest, lieu- 
tenant colonel of regular artillery, marked B in the documents, v/ith the 
printed petition of the officeis of artillery artificers, now filed with the peti- 
tion of Captain Nathaniel Irish ; which certificate is as follows : 

*' Muster roll for the month of January, 1781, of Captain James Gibson's 
company in the regiment of artillery and artificers commanded by Colo- 
nel I3enjamin Flower, stationed at Washington." 

Then follow, as usual, their stations, names, &c., when enlisted, remarks^ 
proof of effective, &c. 

On the other side is written — 

" I do affirm that the within muster roll is a true state of the company, 
without fraud to the United States or any individual, according to the best 
of my knowledge. 

"JAMES GIBSON, Captain. 

'' Affirmed before me, this 10th day of March, 1781. 

" THOMAS FORREST, Lieut. Colonel. 

•'Washington, Majxh 9, 1781. 

" Then mustered Captain James Gibson's company, as specified in the 
within roll. 

" THOMAS FORREST, Lt. Col. Commandant.'' 

April 15, 1777. — It also appears, by the Journals of Congress, that a differ- 
ence was supposed to exist between the rights, privileges, and immunities 
of various corps or regiments; by which it would seem that the harmony 
and good feeling of the service had been disturbed. This coming to the 
knowledge of Congress, ihat body, on the 15th of April, 1777, resolved : 



Bep. No. 384. 21 

"That the continental battaliojis are all on a footing, liable to the same 
Icind of service, and entitled to equal privileges.'^ (Vol. 3, page 111.) 

Now, let it be remembered that Flower's regiment of artillery artificers 
was one of the continental battalions, known and recognised as such on 
the day that this declaration was made by Congress ; and there is no ex- 
ception as to it. Baldwin's regiment o( quart ermaster\s artificers was not 
organized till two years and seven months after this resolution. 

March 15, 1779. — If, however, the character of the regiment of artillery 
artificers had been doubtful before the 15th of March, 1779, its being a 
regular continental battalion was fully established by the resolution 
passed by Congress on that day, making it a part of the S8 battalions, 
as follows : 

"Theboard of war brought in a report, which was taken into consid- 
eration ; whereup'on, 

" Resolved, That all officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, now 
belonging to the corps of light dragoons, and artillery and infantry, and the 
corps of artillery artificers, commissioned and enlisted since the 16th of 
September, 1776, for three years, or during the war, or which shall here- 
iifter be so commissioned and enlisted, not being a part of the 88 battalions 
originally apportioned on the States, be considered as parts of the quotas 
€>i the several States to which they did or shall respectively belong when 
so commissioned or enlisted." (See vol. 5, p. 74.) 

Under this order, the artillery artificers were assigned to Pennsylvania. 
This is exhibited in a letter from the board of war to Joseph Reed, Presi- 
•dpnt of that State, dated 27th November, 1779, as follows : 

" War Office, Noveinber 27, 1779. 
''Sir: Colonel Flower has returned to the board the foregoing list of 
■officers and men belonging to his corps, which we have the honor to trans- 
mit to your excellency. We observe that, except one man in Captain 
Coren's company, the whole corps appeared to have been raised in Penn- 
sylvania, and is to be credited, of course, as apart of their qiiota of con- 
tinental troops ; and, as such, they ask the allowance made by the State 
to their other troops. The letter we had the honor of writing yesterday 
explains the idea we had of this corps, and our opinion of the propriety of 
stheir claim. 

" We have the honor to be yours, &c. 
" By order of the board : 

'• TLM. PICKERING. 

" To His Excellency Jor j;?h Reed, 

" President of Pennsylvania^ 

In consequence of this, the regiment was adopted by Pennsylvania as a 
^art of its regular quota ; and received depreciation, and lands, and all 
other State dues, from that State, as other officers and soldiers of artillery. 
(See the memorial to Congress in 1790, filed with Captain Irish's papers.) 

The light dragoons, the artillery, and a portion of the infantry of the 
army, as well as the artillery artificers, up to the 15th of March, 1779, were 
not attached to the line of any particular State. The same resolution which 
attached the other corps mentioned in this resolution to the lines of the 
■i^tates also attaches the artillery artificers. It has never been contended 



22 Rep. ISTo. 384. 

that the dragoons and the artillery were not included in the promises of" 
half pay; yet they stand upon precisely the same fooling, in regard to- 
those promises, as the artillery artificers. And again : on tlie organization) 
of the army under the resolution of the 3d of October, 1780, each of these- 
same several corps is enumerated and assigned to the States at the same 
time and in the same terms as the artillery artificers. And in the promise- 
of half pay contained in this identical resolution, no distinction or excep- 
tion is made in favor of or against either of those corps, as entitled to this- 
grant ; yet the dragoons, the artillery, and the unprovided corps of infan- 
try, have received it, and the artillery artificers have no*. 

October 3, 17S0. — The artificers are again made a couiponent part of the 
regular army, and are assi.^ned to the State of Pennsylvania as a part of 
its regular military quota cl !-oops ; and the State is directed to complete- 
the regiment to its full complement, supply it with necessaries, and, in 
every respect, to treat it as if originally raised therein. (See vol. 6, pp, 
143 and 144.) 

It ought to be observed, that, by the resolutions of the 3d of October,, 
1780, where the artificers are expressly recognised as a part of the quota 
of troops which the States are called upon to keep up, and where they are 
directed to be credited to the State of Pennsylvania, and in which the- 
provision of seven years' half pay is made for supernumerary officers who 
may retire, no exception is taken against the artificers. And in the reso- 
lution of the 21st of October, 1 780, where the seven years' half pay to- 
retiring officers, and officers wlio serve to the end of the war, is extended' 
to half pay for hfe, there is still no exception of aiiy corps forming a pact 
of the regular military establishment recognised in the resolutions, (and it 
has been shown the artillery artificers did form a part of the Pennsylvania^ 
quota,) as not to be entitled to this benefit. How, then, is it possible, after 
making a corps an actual component part of a specified military force, as; 
the artillery artificers were made to be, and give to that force certain clearly 
defined rights, that you can, by implication, cut off such allowance ? 

In the resolution of the 3d of October, 1780, reorganizing the army, the- 
general term "artificers" is used. It is evident that the artillery artificers^ 
were alone referred to, from the fact that it refers to the regiment as of 
Pennsylvania, to which State it iTad been assigned by the board of war,, 
under the resolution of the 15th of March, 1779, where it is expressly- 
mentioned as artillery artificers. 

It ought here to be observed, (and I state it as a fact,) that the regimenti 
of quartermaster'' s artificers was almost wholly raised in Connecticut, to- 
"which State its colonel (Baldwin) belonged, and in which State its accounts: 
were settled. This fact I assert, from having seen the accounts and a listt 
of the officers, in the archives of Connecticut, in Hartford. 

On the 9th of February, 1780, Congress called upon the States to com- 
plete their quotas of troops, and resolved, that all the men whose service 
did not expire by the 1st of October of that year should be credited to the 
States to which they belonged, whether they were of the line, the additional! 
troops, the guards, the artillery, the horse, or the artificers of the military 
stores or quartermaster's department, xuho, being credited to the States,, 
respectively, should he provided for, deemed, and treated in the same 
mariner as the men of the several liries ; and recommended to the States^ 
to make like provision for the officers and men of the artillery, horse, addi- 
tional corps; mcluding- the guards and regimental artificers, as may be- 



Eep. Xo. 384. 23 

made, in pursuance of any resolution of Congress, for the officers and men 
of the respective battalions, with such exceptions respecting the regimental 
artificers as have been made by Congress respecting thein. (See vol, 6, p. 
19.) Here the artificers are again expressl^r recognised as a portion of the 
regular quotas of the States, and " are to be provided for, and deemed^ 
and treated in the same manner as the men of the several lines ;^' and 
it is recommended to the States to make like provision for the officers and 
men of the artillery, the horse, the additional troops, including the guards 
and regi??iental artificers, as maybe made, in pursuance of any resolve of 
Congress, for the officers and men of the respective battalions of the army, 
v/ith such exceptions respecting the regimental artificers as have been 
made by Congress. And what artificers had been excepted by Congress 
from any existing provisions ? The artificers of the quartermaster's de- 
partment formed into a regiment on the 12th of November, 1779; and 
these, and these only^\\2i6. been excepted from half pay by the resolution 
of the 16th of the same month of November. Nothing can more conclu- 
sively show the difference betv/een the two corps of artificers than this 
resolution of the 9th of February, 17S0. It expressly refers to the tivo 
corps — one as of the military stores department, the other as of the quar- 
term.aster's department ; and, in the call upon the States to furnish the 
troops, it is recommeiaded to grant them all the benefits and provisions 
which Congress had before promised to the army. The artificers are in- 
eluded in this recommendation, with such exceptions as to them as had 
:ilready been made. Now, it is very certain that some artificers were 
intended to be included in this recommendation ; if not, they would not 
have been mentioned at all in that clause of the resolution which makes 
the recommendation. It would have closed with the troops called " the 
guards," and there would then have been no necessity for the exception 
contained in the last clause of the resolution. The fact is, there were two 
corps of artificers — one recognised by Congress as entitled to the half pay, 
the other not so entitled. And it was necessary so to word the resolution, 
in order to keep up the distinction which had previously been made be- 
tween them; otherwise, both regiments would have been included or ex- 
cluded, as the case might have been. 

January 12, 1781. — "It is resolved, that the officers and men of the regi- 
ment oi artillery artificers have the same pay, from and after the 1st of 
August, in bills of the new emission, as was originally fixed in bills of the 
then emission, by the regulations of the department made by Congress on 
the 11th February, 177S; and that they draw the number of rations then 
directed. 

'• That the commanding officer of the artillery, for his extra services in 
the affairs of the ordnance department, receive $A0 a month, in addition 
to his pay as an officer in the line, in bills of the new emission, from and 
after the 1st of August last." (Vol. 7, p. 12.) 

It will thus be perceived, that eighteen months after the organization of 
the quartermaster's artificers, under Colonel Baldwin, the marked differ- 
ence between the two corps is still kept up by Congress, by particular men- 
tion of the artillery artificers. And, further: the close association of the 
field artillery with the artillery artificers is wortViy of remark ; for in this 
resolution, which fixes the pay of artillery artificers, additional pay is also 
granted to the commanding officer of artillery, (General Knox;) and the 



24 Rep. Xo. 384. 

additional pay is given to him for extra services in the ordnance depart- 
ment, the very department conducted by the artillery artificers. 

March 29, 1781. — 'I'he lohok of the regiment of quartermaster's artifi- 
cers, commanded by Colonel Baldwin, was dissolved specially, by name 
and designation, as Baldwin'' s artificers ; and then, in a separate and (lis- 
tinct resolution, it is resolved, ^^ that all the non-commissioned officers and 
men of the regiment of artillery artificers [that is, Flower's regiment] at 
Carlisle, whose times of service are unexpired, be formed in one or more 
company or companies ; and the officers at that place, [that is, Carhsle,] 
except Captains Wylie and Jordan, be no longer continued in the service 
of the United States." 

By this resolution, no officers were reduced but those at Carlisle, Cap- 
tain Irish was then serving in the Southern army. And by this resolution, 
also, the marked difference between the two regiments is still kept up by 
Congress. (Journal, vol. 7, p. 61.) 

May 3, 1782. — The artillery artificers which had been retained in ser- 
vice by the resolution of 29th March, 1781, it would seem, by a resolution 
of the 3d May, 1782, had been placed under the command of Captain 
Wylie, as on that day Congress passed a resolution in these words : 

" On the report of the Secretary of War — 

" Resolved, That, as the dispersed situation of the corps of artificers com- 
manded by Captain Wylie will no longer require the services of Dr. A. 
McCoskey, surgeon, and Dr. W. McCoskey, his mate, they be considered 
as reduced and retiring from the service on the 10th instant; and that the 
surgeon be entitled to all the emoluments heretofore granted to reduced 
regimental surgeons." (See vol. 7, p. 2S2.) 

Nothing can more clearly show the sense of Congress as to whether this 
corps was entitled to half pay, according to the then existing promises, than 
this resolution. It expressly declares that Dr. A. McCoskey, the surgeon 
of the regiment of artillery artificers, is entitled to all the emoluments al- 
ready allowed to reduced regimental surgeons ; in which allowances half 
pay was at that time included. Mark — these allowances are not granted. 
He is declared to be entitled to them. 

There is nothing left in doubt as to the regiment to which Dr. A. Mc- 
Coskey belonged. He had no connexion with Baldwin's artificers. That 
regiment was ivholly dissolved by the resolution of 29th March, 1781 ; 
whilst such of the non-commissioned officers and men of the artillery arti- 
ficers whose times of service were not out, were retained, and directed to 
be formed into one or more companies ; and the resolution reducing and 
retiring Dr. McCoskey is based on the ground of the dispersed situation of 
the artificers commanded by Captain Wylie, who was an officer of the 
artillery artificers from their creation. Dr. McCoskey was surgeon of 
Flower's regiment of artillery artificers. Dr. Baird was surgeon of Bald- 
win's quartermaster's artificers. It will scarcely be contended that it was 
the intention of Congress to give half pay to di surgeon of a regiment, and 
to deny it to all the other officers of the same regiment. On the contrary, 
when, by the resolution of the 21st October, 1780, half pay for life was 
given to officers of the line, nothing being said about surgeons, it was 
doubted by the officers of the hospital establishment whether they were 
included in the designation oi officers made in that resolution : and they ap- 
plied to Congress for explanation. Out of this doubt, and the application 
consequent thereon, arose the resolutions of the 17th January, 1781, ex- 



Eep. Xo. 384. 25 

tending the half pay to the medical staff. It cannot, therefore, be said that 
the surgeon could be " e«////eaf," (which Congress emphatically declared 
he was,) and the othcers of the line of the regiment not entitled to half pay. 
Such a construction would be preposterous. 

The memorial of an officer of Colonel Baldwin's regiment of quarter- 
master's artificers (not artillery artificers) for commutation (Doctor Baird) 
being before Congress, and the doubts now suggested as to the right of 
officers of that regiment to half pay then existing, the House of Represent- 
atives, on the 10th of January, 1S33, adopted the following resolution : 

^'Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to report to this House 
what construction has prevailed with the accounting officers as to the words 
''all military officers,' used in the resolve of the 15th of May, 1778, relative 
to half pay', and the reasons for such construction ; whether they have been 
deemed to apply to officers of the line only, or have been extended to those 
-of the engineer, invalid, artificers, Lee's legion, and other distinct and in- 
dependent corps ; whether there was any specific provision of land, or half 
pay, either to Lee's legion, the corps of engineers, or artificers commanded 
-by Colonel J. Baldwin ; what discrimination, if any, was made in the or- 
ganization of the two last corps, and whether, in both, the promotion of 
officers was not confined to the corps, respectively; and whether these corps 
were not component parts of the eighty-eight battalions raised to serve for 
^during the war,' under the lesolve of the 16th of September, 1776; and 
which of the officers of either corps have obtained land, or half pay, or com- 
mutation of half pay." 

The Third Auditor, in answer to this call, states that, in tiie resolution of 
Congress of the 21st October, 17S0, making provision for the new arrange- 
ment of the army, provisionjs made for two partisan corps, commanded by 
.Armand and Lee, and that,'therefore, they became entitled to the half pay 
promised by the resolves. 

Now, the artillery artificers are expressly recognised and provided for in 
the resolutions of the 3d of October, 1780, to which those of the 21st Octo- 
ber were supplementary, in the same terms as Lee's and Armand's corps ; 
and therefore, according to this definition, entitle precisely as the corps of 
Armand and Lee, 

The Third Auditor further says: As by the resolution of the 14th No- 
vember, 1780, the officers of the engineering department were placed on 
an equal footing with the officers of the line, that, therefore, they were enti- 
tled to commutation. Now, by the resolution of the 11th February, 1773, 
•the artillery artificers are placed on the same footing with officers of the 
same grade in the continental artillery. If, therefore, officers of the conti- 
nental artillery were entitled to half pay, so were the officers of the artillery 
artificers. By the resolution of the 11th March, 1779, organizing the corps 
of engineers, promotion of its officers was confined to their own corps only ; 
precisely as the artillery artificers by the resolution of February 11, 1773, 
and which has been used against the right of these officers to half pay. 

In the communication from the head of the Bounty Land Office of the 
War Department, in answer to the same resolution of the House of the 10th 
January, 1833, a clear distinction is taken between Flower's regiment of 
artillery artificers and Baldwin's regiment of quartermaster's artificers — 
the latter not being considered as military officers ; and, therefore, no bounty 
land had ever been granted them ; whilst the former, (the artillery artifi- 
cers,) being attached to the artillery in the field, were considered military 



26 Rep. No. 384. 

officers, and land had been granted to such of them as had served to the end 
of the war, and had made application for it. Captain Nathaniel Irish was 
one of these officers, and received his warrant for three hundred acres oa 
the 30th day of August, 1791. 

On the 31st October, 1753, the Secretary of War reported to Congress 
the names of the lines, corps, and individual officers, who agreed to accept 
the comnmtation of half pay ; among which are Paltoix's and Pendleton'' s 
artificers^ and Major Bruin, of the artificers — (see vol. S, p. 334.) If it had 
not been well known at the time, when the subject was well understood^ 
that these officers were entitled to half pay, or its equivalent, it can scarcely 
be supposed they would have been returned by the Secretary of War as 
having agreed to accept it ; or, if the Secretary had been mistaken on that 
point, Congress, who had just made the law, and well understood who they 
intended should be entitled to its benefits, would not have suflered it to be 
entered at large on their Journal, without correcting the misapprehensions 
of the Secretary. 

This report of the Secretary of War, stating that a portion of the officers 
of this corps had agreed to accept of the commutation of half pay, it will be 
recollected, was on the 31st October, 1783. Now, on the 3d of November 
follov/ing (only three days thereafter) Congress, on another report from the 
Secretary of War, directed the paymaster to settle the accounts of another 
Captain Pendleton's company of artificers — see vol. 9, p. 7 ; (there were 
two captains of this name in the corps — Captain James Pendleton and Cap- 
tain Daniel Pendleton,) and to give certificates, as is given to the line of the 
army,X\\di,t, included commutation. And it appears, by the records in the 
office of the Register of the Treasury, that all the officers of the corps here 
mentioned actually received the commutation : Captain Daniel Pendleton 
on the 13th December, 17S3 ; Captain John Patton on the 1st March, 1784 ^ 
and Captain James Pendleton on the 7th August, 1784. 

From the facts herein set forth, it is perfectly apparent that the officers 
of the artillery artificers are entitled to commutation ; and it is confidently 
believed that every impartial man, upon reading this statement of facts, and 
the deductions from them, will be of the same opinion. It was to save the 
time of those who may have to act on this matter, and to avoid confusioiii 
and contrariety of decision, that this full investigation has been made for 
the use and information of the committee ; and it is hoped, and confidently 
believed, that its efiect will be to dissipate all doubt as to the undoubted 
right of Captain Irish to his commutation of half pay. 



B. 

Report of the Secretary of JVar, submitted to Congress ^iugnst 3, 1785. 

The Secretary of the United States for the Department of War, to whom 
was referred a memorial of Nathaniel Irish, requesting certain emoluments, 
reports : 

That the corps to which Captain Irish belonged was organized by sev- 
eral resolutions of Congress, passed the 11th February, 177S, under the de- 
nomination of artillery artificers, and that Captain Irish has a commis- 
sion as captain of artillery and commander of a company of artificers,. 



Hep. No. 384. 2T 

That it appears, by the same resolution, that the pay of the officers was 
established the same as others of equal rank in the continental artillery. 

That, on the 12th of November, 1779, Congress resolved that eleven com- 
panies of artificers raised by the quartermaster general be re-formed and in- 
corporated and arranged in such manner as the commander-in-chief shall 
deem proper ; and on the 1 6th of the same month Congress 

Resolved, That it be reconnnended to the several States' to allow the 
corps of artificers, established by Congress the 2d instant, all the benefit pro- 
vided for officers and soldiers in the line of the quotas of the continental 
battalions, except the half pay. 

That the allowance of pay, subsistence, and clothing, of the officers and 
men of the said artificer?, be the sam-. with that of the artillery artificers un- 
der the command of Co.onel Benjanjin Flower. 

That, on the new arrangement of the 3d of October, 1780, Congress re-' 
solved that the regular army of the United States should consist of a cer- 
tain number of regiments of cavalry, artillery, and infantry, and a regitneni 
of artificers, which regiment was required of the State of Pennsylvania ^ 
and on the 21st of October it was 

Resolved, That the officers who were then reduced, and those who should 
continue in the service to the end of the war, should be entitled to half pay 
during life, to commence from the time of their reduction. 
• It does not appear that any artificers were raised by Pennsylvania in 
consequence of the resoUition of the 3d of October, 1780, but there still ex- 
isted some companies of the original regiment of artillery artificers, which 
v/ere ordered to the said State as a part of its quota. 

Although the ideas of Congress are clearly expressed with respect to. • 
those artificers established by the resolution of the 12th of November, 1779,, 
yet, as the regiment of artificers required by the act of the 3d of October^, 
1780, is arranged as part of the armj^, and no discrimination made respect- 
ing the rewards promised by the resolves of the 21st of the same month, it 
is necessary that Congress should determine whether it was their intention 
that the regiment of artificers who might continue in service until the end 
of the war should be entitled to the half pay allowed to the officers of the 
line of the army. 

As your Secretary is not possessed of the opinion of Congress upon this 
point, he is unable to make a particular report upon the case of Captain 
Irish, especially as it is involved with the claims of a similar nature depend- 
ing on the construction of the aforesaid acts of the 3d and 21st of Octo- 
ber, 17S0. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

H. KNOX. 



Report cf Commissioner of Army Accounts, and the accompanying ar- 
gument. 

New XQ-&yi, August ^,\~ ^5. 

The commissioner for settling the army accounts, to whom was referred 
the petition of John Jordan and Thomas Wylie, late captains in the Penn- 
sylvania corps of artillery artificers, begs leave to report : 

That there are no existing resolutions of Congress, in his opinion; on- 



f>8 Hep. m. 384. 

which the petitioners can found a claim of the commutation in lieu of half 
pay for life; and therefore, if such a grant should be made, it will be ne- 
cessary to adopt a new principle respecting the corps of artificers. 

JNO. PIERCE. 



•.Argument for and against the grarit of commutation to the corps of 

artificers. 

The principles on which Captains Jordan and Wylie appear to found 
their claim of commutation in lieu of half pay are : 1st. That Congress 
have considered them in sundry resolutions as on the establishment of the 
army, and as part of the quota of the several States. 2d. That on the 1 1th 
of February, 1778, they had granted them the same pay, clothing, and 
benefits, as the artillery ; and on the 9th of February, 17S0, were directed to 
he provided for, deemed, and treated in the same manner as the several 
State lines. 3d. That on the 3d day of October, 17S0, Congress directed 
the artificers to be formed into one corps, and promised to the supernume- 
raries half pay for seven years ; and on the 21st of the same month ex- 
tended the half pay for life to the reduced officers and those who continued 
in service to the end of the war. As the former resolutions included the 
corps in express terms, it may be supposed it was intended to be compre- 
hended in the latter. 4th. That they had been obliged to receive for their 
services the same kind of certificates with the military officers. Being sub- 
jected, therefore, to their disadvantages, it is no more than reasonable that 
they should also have their privileges. 

It may be necessary to premise, that it appears to be the intention of 
Congress to retain the allowance of commutation as much as possible ; and, 
of course, where the clear intention of an act is not to be discovered in its 
words, the grant is not to be made by implication. 

The commissioner, therefore, having founded his opinion on the follow- 
ing reasons, humbly submits the same to the consideration of Congress : 

1st. That the assigning these corps as part of the States' quota was to 
determine the number of luen who were to be furnished by each State, 
and to give their officers and men the advantages of the lines derived im- 
mediately from the States ; but carmot be construed to extend to any de- 
mands the military officers, as such, may have upon the Union. 

2d. That th^. resolutions of February :1, 177.'^ and February 9, 1780, 
■ought not to extend to this allowance, because ihe words '' benefits or 
emoluments" appear reasonably to include the usual pay, subsistence, for- 
age, and servants, of an officer only ; more especially as, at the time of 
passing these acts, the grant of half pay for life was not in existence ; and 
as the hist-mentioned resolution has included the exceptions that had here- 
tofore been made respecting the Artificers, which undoubtedly refers to the 
special exception in the resolve of November 16, 1779. 

3d. That the resolve of October 3, 1780, granting the seven years' half 
pay to the officers then deranged, having never been put into execution in 
respect to this corps, there can arise no question whether the officers are 
entitled to its benefits. But that the one of the 21st of October should be 
construed as comprehending the corps, is very doubtful, as Congress, in 
their first promise of half pay, confined it to military officers only ; and hav- 
ing granted commissions to the artificers for the sole purpose of rank in 



Rep. No. 384. 29 

their own corps,and to hold courts martial ; and Congress having also express- 
ly, in a resolution recommending this corps to their States, excepted the 
allowance of half pay ; and when Colonel Baldwin's corps was reduced in 
178 1, the officers retired without a promise of it, which would have been 
necessary to have entitled even the military to such allowance ; it there- 
fore appears to be the uniform intention of Congress, through their several 
acts before and after October, 17S0, to exclude this corps from the half 
pay ; which furnishes sufficient foundation, with the nature of this promise,, 
to conclude that the general terr of " the officer^' in the act of October 21^ 
1780, comprehends the military only. 

4th. Whether it may bo nroper and reasonable to grant the commuta- 
tion to these officers, in cc:i.iid«L'ation of their being paid in the securities 
of the United States ; or whether it will be just, in consideration that they 
are not entitled to the commutation, to pay them for the years 1782 and 
1783, in specie; are questions that the commissioners cannot determine. 



D. 

Report of the. committee on the petitions of Joseph King and John JordaUy. 
adopted by Congress, October 1 9, 1 785, and referred to the commissioner 
of army accounts, for his government in settiing the accounts of the 
army. 

The committee, consisting of Mr. Ellery, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Wil- 
liamson, to whom were referred the memorials of several officers of the lato 
corps of artificers, praying that, in settling their accounts, they be allowed 
the commutation of half pay, as founded on justice or on the acts of Con- 
gress, beg leave to report : 

That the claims of those officers do not appear to be founded on tho 
usage of nations nor in equity ;they believe that lialf pay has been allowed 
to military officers, partly from a regard to the hardships and personal dan- 
gers to which they were exposed, but chiefly from a consideration that, by 
a long continuance in the military line, they may iiave lost those habits by 
Avhich they had formerly been enabled to provide for themselves and fami- 
lies ; which reasons do not apply so fully to the officers of artificers. 

Your committee are of opinion that their sole rule on the occasion must 
be the acts of Congress respecting the officers in the corps of artificers ; and 
they do not find any resolution by which they are entitled to half pay or 
commutation ; on the contrary, they seem to be expressly cut oft' from any 
such claim. 

The original act of Congress of May 15, 1778, by which half pay was 
promised for seven years, confines the same to military officers, which cer- 
tainly did not include the artificers ; and your committee are of opinion 
that, in all subsequent acts which relate to the half pay, the sair^e denomi- 
nation of officers must be intended, unless where other officers are expressly 
mentioned. Surely the act of October 2, 1 780, promising half pay to of- 
ficers who might be deranged, never could be construed as giving pay 
to any class of officers who had no claim to half pay, had they continued 
in service to the end of the war. If any doubts could have arisen whether 
the artificers were included in the promise of half pay, it must be fully re- 
moved by the act of the 16th of November, 1779. It was then resolved, 



30 Rep. No. 3S4. 

that it be recommended to the several States to allow the corps of artificers, 
established by Congress the 12th instant, all the benefits provided for offi.- 
-cers in the line of their quotas of the continental battalions, except the 
half pay. After this pointed and express exclusion of those officers from 
the allowance of half pay, your committee are of opinion that nothing but 
a subsequent promise, equally pointed and express, can give them a titleto 
the same. None such has been made ; wherefore, they submit the follow- 
ing resolve : 

That the otUcers of the late corps of artificers in the service of the Unit- 
ed States are not entitled to half pay or the commutation of half pay. 

The above is a true copy of an original referred to me by Congress, to 
take order. 

JOHN PIERCE, 
Commissioner of Army Accounts. 
The Hon. the Secretary of War. 



E. 

lieport of General Knox, Secretary of War, in 1783. 

War Office, July 30,1733. 

The Secretary for the Department of War, to whom was referred the 
memorial of Alexander Powers, attorney for a number of the officers of 
the late regiment of artillery artificers, claiming the commutation of the 
lialf pay granted to the late officers of the army of the United States, reports : 

That the claim of the late officers of the regiment of artillery artificers 
for half pay, or a commutation thereof, has been several times submitted to 
Congress, and received their decision on the 19th of October, 1785, as will 
more fully appear by the copy of a report of a committee of Congress, here- 
with submitted, which was referred to the commissioner of army accounts 
to take order. 

That this decision respecting artificers was conformable to the several 
resolves of Congress respecting the objects of the half pay. 

But the memorialist assumes another principle, and asserts, that he and 
liis constituents were commissioned as artillery officers, disciplined as such, 
and performed duty accordingly ; that their services and promises were 
€qual to other officers of artillery, and their reward ought to be the same. 
As this is an appeal to the justice of the sovereign for the performance of 
a public contract, it may be necessary to stale the following circumstances, 
to show that it is unsupported by proper facts : 

1st. The artificers were established as a part of the civil branch of the 
ordnance department, as will appear by the resolves of Congress of 11th of 
February, 1778. The rank which was given to the officers was j^ecessary 
for the government of the workmen, and the relative pay with ihi officers 
of artillery was the rule of pay to the officers of artificers; but no stipula- 
tion was then made, or at any subsequent period, th. t the officers of the 
artificers should have the same rewards as the officers of the army. 

2d. The establishment of the battalions which form the corps of artil- 
lery, from time to time, will prove that the officers were not at any period 
considered as artillerists. 



Rep. 'No. 384. 31 

3(]. The artificers did not, in any instance, act in the field as artillerists ; 
they were mostly stationed at the arsenal at Carlisle, and employed in 
making carriages of various kinds for the use of the artillery in the field. 
But there are two circumstances on which the memorialist and his con- 
stituents seem to place great confidence, viz : that their commissions ex- 
pressed officers of "artillery and artificers," and that the surgeon of the 
regiment was allowed, by tiie resolve of Congress of the 5th of May, 1782, 
all the emoluments heretofore allowed to reduced regimental surgeons. The 
manner of filling up the commissions must have been an error, as it was 
not authorized by any act of Congress, 

It would appear, by the resolve of the 3d of May, 1782, that Congress 
considered the surgeon diiferently circumstanced from the officers of the 
artificers, as the corps had been previously reduced by the resolve of Con- 
gress of the 29th March, 1781, and all the officers, except two, discharged 
without any specification of rewards. 

On the whole, your Secretary is of opinion that it would be proper, in 
order to prevent further applications, for Congress to pass a resolution on 
the subject, as the report of the committee of the 19th October, 1785, has 
not been published. On this principle, the following resolve is submitted : 

Resolved, That the claim of the late officers of the artillery artificers for 
the commutation of the half pay granted to the late officers of the army of 
the United States cannot be allowed. 



F. 

Report of the Secretary of IVar in 1790. 
[Communicated to the House of Representatives, March 19, 1790.] 

War Office, March 19, 1790. 

The Secretary for the Department of War, to whom was referred the pe- 
tition of Alexander Power and others, late officers of the regiment of artil- 
lery artificers, reports : 

That the claim of tlie late officers of the regiment of artillery artificers for 
half pay, or the commutation thereof, granted to the officers of the late army, 
vas several times submitted to the United States in Congress assembled, 
and received their decision on the 19th day of October, 1785. 

That the principles whereon the said decision was founded will fully ap- 
pear by the reports of the late commissioner of army accounts and a com- 
mittee of Congress, both of which are herewith submitted, (Nos. 1 and 2.) 

That the said decision being against the claim of the said officers of ar- 
tillery artificersj.the same was referred to the commissioner of army accounts 
tp take order. 

That the said decision appears to the Secretary of War to have been con- 
formable to the several previous resolves of Congress relative to the subject 
of half pay, and that the same ought to be final. 

That the petitioners again brought forward their claim to Congress in the 
year 1788, which was referred to the subscriber, whose report is herewith 
submitted, (No. 3,) but which was never acted upon. 

The Secretary of War embraces this occasion respectfully to observe, that 
it is of high importance to adhere generally to the decisions of the late Con- 
gress on the subjects of claims against the United States. 



32 K.ep. No. 384. 

That he conceives no judgment of this nature should be reversed but on 
the most ample proof that the same was formed on a misrepresentation of 
facts; but that, while such judgments are reversed with great caution, con- 
structive judgments, made on previous resolves of Congress, ought to re- 
main fully established. 

That if a contrary conduct should be admitted, the accounts hitherto set- 
tled by the United States, and by the respective States, with individuals, 
would be liable to revision and unlimited confusion. 

That when the abilities, integrity, and liberality of the former Congress 
are considered, it may be justly presumed that individuals experienced the 
fairest investigation of their claims, and that upright decisions were formed 
thereon. 

That, with respect to the present petition, the Secretary of War is unable 
to perceive any new facts or circumstances of such a nature as to require a 
repeal of the former decision of Congress on the subject ; he therefore re- 
ports the following resolve : 

Resolved, That the petition of the late officers of the artillery artificers 
for the commutation of the half pay cannot be granted ; the United States 
in Congress assembled having decided against the same on the 19th of Oc^ 
tober, 1785. 

All which is humbly submitted to the House of Representatives. 

H. KNOX, Secretary of JVar, 



G. 
General fVushington^s instructions to Commissary General Flower. 

Sir : The honorable continental Congress having resolved to establish a 
magazine, laboratories, and foundries for casting cannon, &:c., at York- 
town, in the State of Pennsylvania, you are hereby directed to repair 
thither, and erect or provide such buildings as shall be necessary for carry- 
ing on the preparation of fixed ammunition of every species ; an air fur- 
nace to be constructed there, to hold three thousand weight of fluxed metal; 
a mill for the purpose of boring the cannon, &c., after they are cast; shops 
sufficient for forty carpenters, forty, blacksmiths, and twenty wheelwrights ;^ 
turners and tinmen in proportion to the demand the laboratory shall have 
for them. Also, twelve harness makers, to make spare harness, double and 
single. 

The artificers above mentioned are ta consult the founder about the size 
of the cannon; and they are to make spare carriages for them, the wheels, 
cheeks, timbers, &c., to be ready to be put together for immediate use : the 
founder to be instructed to cast six-pounders first, three-pounders and how- 
itzers next ; and, after there are about sixty of these cast, he is to cast ten 
twelve-pounders. 

Besides the artificers before mentioned, who are to be enlisted for one 
year, there are to be sixty persons employed in the laboratory, enlisted for 
ihe war, consisting of one captain, who is to be Captain Coren, one captain 
lieutenant, four lieutenants, six sergeants, six corporals, six bombardiers, 
one drum and fife, with twenty-eight matrosses ; these persons are to be 
enlisted asartillery men, although they are at present to be employed in the 
laboratories. 

This coaipaiiy iis to fix uU kinds of ammunition, according to the orders 



Rep. No. 384. 33 

they shall receive. Case shot, with flannel cartridges, for three, six, and 
twelve-pounders, to be the first object; cartridges are likewise to be made 
in great nraiibers. 

You are to contract for and procure, likewise, the articles, a list of which 
you have on a separate paper. 

Exclusive of the above artificers, we shall want a company of artificers, 
enlisted during the war, to be attached to the artillery in the field, consist- 
ing of one master carpenter, one master wheelwright, and one master black- 
smith; two tinmen, two turners, two coopers, four harness makers, two nailers, 
and two farriers; six wheelwrights, twenty-five carpenters, and fifteen 
smiths — the whole being sixty — under the direction of the master carpenter. 
■ The people now employed in the difi'erent branches in Philadelphia of 
making carriages for cannon, casting of cannon, and preparing ammunition 
of all kinds, are still to continue to carry on their different business there ; 
and if there should be any thing necessary to further or quicken these mat- 
ters, you are hereby directed to use your utmost exertions for these im- 
portant purposes. 

After the buildings, furnace, &c., are prepared at Yorktown, part of the 
different branches to be removed thither. In the course of providing these 
matters, you will have occasion for sums of money, which you v/ill procure 
by applying to the commissioners of Congress, at Philadelphia. 

Mr. Byers, the founder at Philadelphia, must have every encouragement 
and assistance, in order to carry on the business with the utmost spirit. 

The commissioners of the honorable Congress, residing at Philadelphia, 
■will, upon your applying to them, which you are to do, give you every 
assistance in their power. For any thing necessary to be transacted in 
camp, you are to apply to Major General Greene, in the absence of General 
Knox. 

You must keep a very particular account of all matters and expenses 
transacted by you, in order to render in when called for. 

The speedy accomplishment of the matters with which you are intrusted 
is of such high import to the welfare of the continent, that I hope no in- 
ducement will be wanting to urge you to complete them as soon as possible. 

The continental Congress have resolved, that it is their opinion that Car- 
lisle, in Pennsylvania, is a proper place for a magazine, &c. You are, 
therefore, not to make any preparations in Yorktown, which cannot be 
removed from thence to Carlisle. I shall write to the Congress concerning 
this matter, and let you know the result as soon as possible ; in the mean 
lime, every preparation is to be pushed in Philadelphia with the utmost 
vigor. 

Given at headquarters, at Morristown, this 16th day of January, 1777. 

G. WASHIiNGTON. 

To Lieut. Col. Benjamin Flower, 

Commissary Ge?ieral Military Stores. 



34 Hep. No. 384. 

H. 

Captain Pendletoti's caSe. 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor^ s Office, December 23, 1841. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 22d 
instant, wherein you state that, to aid in the investigation of certain claims, 
the Committee on Revolutionary Claims are desirons of ascertaining wheth- 
er Captain Pendleton, of the artificers, with whom the paymaster general 
was ordered to settle, by resolution of Congress of 3d November, 1783, re- 
ceived his commutation, and if so, to what State he belonged ; and that 
any information in regard to his corps which may be in my possession is 
desired. 

In reply, I have to state, that it appears, by the revolutionary records in 
this office, that a settlement was made by Mr. Pierce, the paymaster gen- 
eral, of the commutation of Captain Daniel Pendleton, on 3d December, 
1783, and final settlement certificates were issued to him therefor, as ap- 
pears by the receipt of Captain Pendleton, dated West Point, 13th Decem- 
ber, 1783, for iS2, 950, which (with ^50, a month's pay for the Cincinnati 
Society) constituted the five years' full pay ; but it also appears, that final 
settlement certificates to the amount of S3,000 were subsequently return- 
ed by Captain Pendleton to tb.e paymaster general. Mr. Pierce designed, 
no doubt, to cancel the former transaction, on the ground of the former issue 
having been unauthorized by law ; for it also appears, by the records, that 
Mr. Pierce, on the 12th September, 1786, nearly three years after the for- 
mer transaction, made a report to Congress on the petition of Captain Pen- 
dleton, claiming allowances to be made to him, of which the commutation 
formed one ; a copy of which report, so far as the same regarded commuta- 
tion, and therein referred to, I have the honor to enclose. 

Captain Pendleton, it is believed, belonged to Massachusetts. 

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

PETER HAGNER, Auditor. 

Hon. H. Hall, Chairman of 

Committee on Revolutionary Claims. 



Captain Patton's case. 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, January 19, 1842. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, which I received this 
morning, I have the honor to state, that the final settlement certificates for 
the commutation of Captain Thomas Patton,of the artificers, and his sub- 
altern officers, were issued and subsequently returned, as in the case of 
Captain Pendleton. 1 cannot find that any certifii;ates were issued for com- 
mutation to Major Jeremiah Bruen, of the artificers. 
With great respect, your most obedient servant, 

PETER HAGNER, Audito-. 
Hon. HilandHall, Chairman of 

Committee on Revolutionary Clciimn. 



